There was no Jesus

[Celerity]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Yonnie3 (a host of the Editorials & Other Articles group).

How could a cult leader draw crowds, inspire devotion and die by crucifixion, yet leave no mark in contemporary records?

https://aeon.co/essays/why-the-son-of-god-story-is-built-on-mythology-not-history





Most New Testament scholars agree that some 2,000 years ago a peripatetic Jewish preacher from Galilee was executed by the Romans, after a year or more of telling his followers about this world and the world to come. Most scholars – though not all. But let’s stick with the mainstream for now: the Bible historians who harbour no doubt that the sandals of Yeshua ben Yosef really did leave imprints between Nazareth and Jerusalem early in the common era. They divide loosely into three groups, the largest of which includes Christian theologians who conflate the Jesus of faith with the historical figure, which usually means they accept the virgin birth, the miracles and the resurrection; although a few, such as Simon Gathercole, a professor at the University of Cambridge and a conservative evangelical, grapple seriously with the historical evidence. Next are the liberal Christians who separate faith from history, and are prepared to go wherever the evidence leads, even if it contradicts traditional belief. Their most vocal representative is John Barton, an Anglican clergyman and Oxford scholar, who accepts that most Bible books were written by multiple authors, often over centuries, and that they diverge from history.

A third group, with views not far from Barton’s, are secular scholars who dismiss the miracle-rich parts of the New Testament while accepting that Jesus was, nonetheless, a figure rooted in history: the gospels, they contend, offer evidence of the main thrusts of his preaching life. A number of this group, including their most prolific member, Bart Ehrman, a Biblical historian at the University of North Carolina, are atheists who emerged from evangelical Christianity. In the spirit of full declaration, I should add that my own vantage point is similar to Ehrman’s: I was raised in an evangelical Christian family, the son of a ‘born-again’, tongues-talking, Jewish-born, Anglican bishop; but, from the age of 17, I came to doubt all that I once believed. Though I remained fascinated by the Abrahamic religions, my interest in them was not enough to prevent my drifting, via agnosticism, into atheism. There is also a smaller, fourth group who threaten the largely peaceable disagreements between atheists, deists and more orthodox Christians by insisting that evidence for a historical Jesus is so flimsy as to cast doubt on his earthly existence altogether. This group – which includes its share of lapsed Christians – suggests that Jesus may have been a mythological figure who, like Romulus, of Roman legend, was later historicised.



But what is the evidence for Jesus’ existence? And how robust is it by the standards historians might deploy – which is to say: how much of the gospel story can be relied upon as truth? The answers have enormous implications, not just for the Catholic Church and for faith-obsessed countries like the United States, but for billions of individuals who grew up with the comforting picture of a loving Jesus in their hearts. Even for people like me, who dispensed with the God-soul-heaven-hell bits, the idea that this figure of childhood devotion might not have existed or, if he did, that we might know very little indeed about him, takes some swallowing. It involves a traumatic loss – which perhaps explains why the debate is so fraught, even among secular scholars. When I’ve discussed this essay with people raised as atheists or in other faiths, the question invariably asked goes something like this: why is it so important for Christians that Jesus lived on earth? What is at stake here is the unique aspect of their faith – the thing that sets it apart. For more than 1,900 years, Christianity has maintained the conviction that God sent his son to earth to suffer a hideous crucifixion to save us from our sins and give us everlasting life. Jesus’ earthbound birth, life and particularly his death, which ushered in redemption, are the very foundation of their faith. These views are so deeply entrenched that, even for those who have loosened the grip of belief, the idea that he might not have been ‘real’ is hard to stomach.

Secondo Pia’s photograph of the Shroud of Turin (May 1898), digital print from the Musée de l’Élysée, Lausanne.

You’d think that a cult leader who drew crowds, inspired devoted followers and was executed on the order of a Roman governor would leave some indentation in contemporary records. The emperors Vespasian and Titus and the historians Seneca the Elder and the Younger wrote a good deal about 1st-century Judea without ever mentioning Jesus. That could mean simply that he was less significant an actor than the Bible would have us think. But, despite the volume of records that survive from that time, there is also no death reference (as there was, say, for the 6,000 slaves loyal to Spartacus who were crucified along the Appian Way in 71 BCE), and no mention in any surviving official report, private letter, poetry or play. Compare this with Socrates, for example. Though none of the thoughts attributed to him survive in written form, still we know that he lived (470-399 BCE) because several of his pupils and contemporary critics wrote books and plays about him. But with Jesus there is silence from those who might have seen him in the flesh – which is awkward for historicists like Ehrman; ‘odd as it may seem,’ he wrote in 1999, ‘in none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.’ In fact, there are just three sources of putative proof of life – all of them posthumous: the gospels, the letters of Paul, and historical evidence from beyond the Bible.

snip

[elleng]

1. 'a peripatetic Jewish preacher from Galilee'

Thanks Interesting.

[twodogsbarking]

2. I saw Jesus on a game show last week. He didn't win. Hmmm.

[Kennah]

11. Check day in 3 days

[calguy]

3. What a fascinating article

Excellent insights about the very existence of an actual Christ figure, about which I've had many doubts over the years. One of the comments I read at the end says it all for me....

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 BC – 65 AD

Thanks for posting. I'd give you a heart if I had any left.

[Chainfire]

5. Jesus, as a historical reality, as depicted, is critical to the faith. For the deal closing argument for Christians is

the Resurrection. If he didn't die and then come back to life then there is no evidence that he was any more than just another mortal man with a good story.

Even though I am an atheist, I believe that there must have been someone that the story was based on but I doubt that our description of him and his works approach reality even if we discount the miracles. If we just go back 125 years, and look at American Western "heroes" we find out that the legends don't talley up with the facts.

Christianity is good business and that is the key to its survival. I just looked at a number of 73 billion dollars for the net worth of the Catholic Church holdings. The protestants don't do badly either. Us atheist have nothing so no wonder we don't get no respect.

[Bayard]

6. Bookmarking

[cachukis]

7. Took a course in Christology in 1972.

It was presented by a married Deacon of the church.
Fascinating expose of the various controversies and solutions of the papacy to control the narrative.
He was proud of the defence. I was not sold.
Luckily, the next year I took a course on the Dead Sea Scrolls. My prof was a nun who studied with Yigael Yadin, an early Examiner.
I got to study the Essenes and John the Baptist.
Eye opening.
Since then, I have believed christianity evolved from the disappointment of his demise. I keep searching for a connection, but most of my readings defer to the written record before them. Not much got on papyrus.

When I studied linguistics, I found "chrestus" also referred to Socrates. It was a Greek term to describe a radical approach to thinking. Some might describe as aberrant.

The Enuma Elish, the Babylonian story of creation, adorned the facades of the civilization's temples. They were pictographs that allowed for embellishment.

Societies need a connection with the past.

We now have histories that are infinitely more accurate than myth.
Thomas Jefferson, with all his duplicity, is better evaluated than mere statuary.

This AEON article should get as much exposure as possible.

Thanks.

[birdographer]

8. Always been my thinking

There is written record of many of the people who were supposedly around during Jesus' time. And yet not a thing about him. He supposedly drew crowds of thousands, who followed him around. It makes no sense to me that there is no written record of him other than the Bible, written exactly *how* long after he supposedly lived????

But oh boy, this is not something to mention to very many people.

[shrike3]

9. Old argument. Discussed around the time of the French revolution, if I remember correctly.

This guy sounds more credible than Arachaya S., who got a lot of exposure back on DU back in the day.

[orthoclad]

10. The repetition of ancient themes in christian myth

The repetition of ancient themes in christian myth makes me doubt historical accuracy. The central image of Christianity is the cross or crucifix, the symbol of sacrifice by torture, used in an act of sacrificial atonement. Such sacrifices date to extreme antiquity.

Human sacrifice is an essential, founding myth of the Abrahamic religions. Abraham's son Isaac being spared by an angel at the last second sounds like a fictional device, softening the story. This has obvious parallels to "God" (Jehovah, Yahweh) offering his son as sacrifice.

Atonement through sacrifice was a common ancient practice, often using animals (scapegoat), but sometimes people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

Jesus' message of love and kindness, rebooting the bloodiness of the old testament, has been interpreted by some as a rumor of Gautama Buddha's teachings reaching the Mediterranean world.

Another ancient theme is The Flood, which is also described in the Epic of Gilgamesh, dating to 2100 BC.

To my thinking, the only original contribution of Abrahamic mythology is monopatriarchy. I don't say monotheism. In the Abrahamics, only the male divine principle is worshiped; the female principle is denied or sublimated into Mary-worship. Christianity has a divine Father and Son. The mother is a human vessel used only to incarnate the male Divine.

I think that Jesus, like The Flood, may have had some actual historical inspiration, maybe some minor local celebrity not notable enough to make it into the written record. Robert Graves, in King Jesus, theorized that Jesus was a political revolutionary who wanted to establish a thousand-year reign of him and his disciples, the Millennium.

An interesting speculative fiction read is "Behold The Man" by Michael Moorcock, an sf novella which won the 1967 Nebula Award and was later expanded to novel form. I won't give spoilers, except that it involves time travel.

What REALLY disturbs me is the bloody theocracy of Christianized Rome as it fell. This set the tone for centuries of oppression and conflict.

Thanks for the very educational link.

[Yonnie3]

12. Locking this post

Posts about religion are not allowed in this forum

Statement of Purpose

Post excerpts from articles, blogs, and other recently-published material related to politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.